ISIS

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Mr. Burning**

You're seriously advocating carpet bombing half a country? With no regard to the millions of civilians in the area?

Yes, yes I am.

I would further advocate a full scale invasion, not a peacekeeping mission, not hearts and minds. No token advisors. A full on boots on ground effort.

ISIS Are to all intents and purposes a hostile nation state set on conquering its neighbors. In the last thousand or so years war has not changed its nature with regards to defeating such a foe. Bring all your might to bear and make such a war that your enemy can no longer fight and will no longer have the will to do so in the future. Such an undertaking entails massive casualties.

Give you enemies pause for thought by their destruction and the destruction of their allies.

Salt the earth.

ISIS leadership needs destroying.

ISIS supporters need to be fought, and stopped.

The Muslim world will not stop this on their own.

The Muslim world may look upon a massive act of aggression as a means to promulgate Muslim cohesion against the western world.

But ISIS have to be stopped. And in such a way to give pause to any with similar ideals.

Unfortunately, previous actions fought with constraints and conceit have been met with public disdain and have exposed weaknesses to be exploited.

Thus we have the situation we all face now.

**IAmTheWalrus**

Mr. Burning wrote:
You're seriously advocating carpet bombing half a country? With no regard to the millions of civilians in the area?

Yes, yes I am.

I would further advocate a full scale invasion, not a peacekeeping mission, not hearts and minds. No token advisors. A full on boots on ground effort.

ISIS Are to all intents and purposes a hostile nation state set on conquering its neighbors. In the last thousand or so years war has not changed its nature with regards to defeating such a foe. Bring all your might to bear and make such a war that your enemy can no longer fight and will no longer have the will to do so in the future. Such an undertaking entails massive casualties.

Give you enemies pause for thought by their destruction and the destruction of their allies.

Salt the earth.

ISIS leadership needs destroying.

ISIS supporters need to be fought, and stopped.

The Muslim world will not stop this on their own.

The Muslim world may look upon a massive act of aggression as a means to promulgate Muslim cohesion against the western world.

But ISIS have to be stopped. And in such a way to give pause to any with similar ideals.

Unfortunately, previous actions fought with constraints and conceit have been met with public disdain and have exposed weaknesses to be exploited.

Thus we have the situation we all face now.

Why must they be stopped? What threat do they pose to us? You're advocating a very temporary solution to what has become an enduring problem. The United States and her allies stepping in once again is only going to fuel the fire of Islamic extremism, and as such this needs to be taken care of by the regional powers that adhere to the same creed, to show that they won't tolerate this sort of behavior.

ISIS is neither a nation, nor a state, and it has little in the way of resources and with the tides turning their support will dry up quickly. The United States failed to heed the lessons of the Soviet adventure in Afghanistan, and we are paying the price now, both in the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Islamic extremists aren't something that you can defeat with military force, because even military setbacks are an ideological tool. We need to stop playing the same game and try a new approach.

This isn't a nation we are making war on, but an ideology. The last several decades have exposed the folly of trying to make war on an ideal, with the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, and to try and do so again would be both a waste of blood and treasure. I find it appalling that you would even advocate such an extreme strategy, tied to the suffering of millions, to try and rid the world of what can be considered a minor problem.

As a soldier, I have one thing to say to you. Screw you. You want to send soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines to fight an avoidable war to sate your bloodlust? No, just no. And until you've seen the torn bodies of your friends, and of children that particular option has no place in this conversation. See the sort of horrors that have been visited upon the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the service members that have served there and then tell me that it's a viable option.

**Ahtman**

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
Why must they be stopped?

Well they have already killed our people, our allies, and civilians.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
What threat do they pose to us?

Well excluding that they have already killed people (including us) they are also disrupting the entire region which is bad for the region and bad for us. Even if you don't care about foriegn relations it makse us look weak to stand around and barely do anything. We can ignore them but that won't work out well.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
ISIS is neither a nation, nor a state

They are trying to be become just that, and in many ways already see themselves as such.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
it has little in the way of resources and with the tides turning their support will dry up quickly.

They are the richest terror organization out there and have lots of resources, actually. You aren't seeing it from their view. They will keep taking areas and killing aid workers until they actually are stopped. How many more British/American/Australian/Iraqi/Syrians do they have to kill and displace to be taken seriously? I'm not saying we need to nuke them from orbit (though that is the only way to be sure) but we need to do something more than we are.

**Stormwall**

Not to be confrontational but, I wonder how many people on Dakka actually served. It is easy to comment from the leisure of an armchair. (I know some have though, probably reason some of the posts in this thread are so well informed.)

Either we fully commit with no bull ROEs that do more harm to us than good, have public backing (without the armed forces being more worried about warfare than stupid social issues like religious headware and dreadlocks being added to the regs,) and go house to house, street to street (I am refrencing Fallujah, US Marines, before one of you misinterpretates that,) we will not win. We need to /fully/ commit, or avoid it altogether. There are high stakes at play. If we go unto the breach again, our nation also must be prepared to properly treat our troops when they come home. ISIL is a threat though it is truly a mixed bag considering all of the politics and involvement in that area between rival factions. To be honest and to be OT, ISIL is going to be a thorn in many countries sides before it is over due to their ideology, manpower, and the funds they gather.

**Ouze**

Mr. Burning wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
You know in WW2, when you looked up and saw hundreds of bombers overhead and sound of their engines shook the earth?

Thats what ISIS needs to look up and see.

Yah know, I kind of agree.

Since the US is the only power capable I would suggest that Obama goes in front of a camera and apologizes in advance for the feth ton of ordnance that civilians may get dropped on them. At the close of his speech the first cruise missiles should be hitting their targets, to be followed by waves of B-52s carrying iron bombs. Carpet bomb from the northern edge of Baghdad upwards to the borders of Iran and Turkey.

B1's and B2's to assist in the effort.

It seems odd to me that the best way to counter ISIS killing innocent people is for us to kill substantially more innocent people on a larger scale, which is exactly what both of you are describing.

We should do precisely nothing, because the US does not have the political will to stage a full on war with decades of occupation, and anything less then that is a waste of lives and resources.

ISIL has declared that Saudi Arabia is their next target: Well, Saudi Arabia is a rich country that spends a larger percentage of GDP on it's military than nearly any other country. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not super hot for my country go to another war to protect the guys who gave us Osama Bin Laden and 15 of the 9/11 hijackers.

**Ahtman**

Ouze wrote:
We should do precisely nothing, because the US does not have the political will to stage a full on war with decades of occupation, and anything less then that is a waste of lives and resources.

While I don't necessarily disagree that doesn't mean it isn't frustrating to watch. I would like to see the powers in the area take a more proactive stance with our support, if anything. They need to be the ones doing the most direct handling, but that doesn't mean we should sit on our hands either. We are helping out a bit now, but I would like to see us do a bit more, but admittedly I think others need to step up more first or at the very least simultaneously.

**Frazzled**

Grey Templar wrote:
You know in WW2, when you looked up and saw hundreds of bombers overhead and sound of their engines shook the earth?

Thats what ISIS needs to look up and see.

How will that help?

We need to step back and view this without emotion. What is in the best long term interests of the US. What makes the US the most safe.

**Ouze**

Ahtman wrote:
[While I don't necessarily disagree that doesn't mean it isn't frustrating to watch. .

No, I mean, I see Americans being beheaded, FFS, and I want justice - or at least blood - too. It's galling. All of those carriers, all of those fighter jets, all of those nuclear missiles in their silos and those submarines in the sea and the satellites in space and all of our might, and we can't do anything.

But - we can't really do anything. Not anything useful and productive in the long term. Neither this president nor an incoming president of any party is willing to commit on the level it would take to actually solve this problem, and for good reason, because the American people aren't going to support it, either.

I don't see a winning hand for us here. The best we can do, I think, is try to dissuade Americans from going to the region and continue to contribute the air power we do have the political will to commit. This talk of carpet-bombing is a little unrealistic, kind of a power fantasy that doesn't take much of a poke to fall apart.

**BaronIveagh**

Frazzled wrote:

What makes the US the most safe.

ISIL in a pine box.

Something that a lot of you are not getting is that even with US air support, an ISIL victory is a real possibility. This is not something that is just going to go away on it's own and thus far our allies seem to be able to manage a stalemate at best on ISIL's territory. They're factionalized, and some would rather shoot each other than fight ISIL.

I don't see this ending any way but with US boots on the ground. Either one our terms, or on ISILs.

Also, I love the idea that ISIL is a 'middle east problem'. Much in the same way that Germany was a 'European problem' in 1940.

**Ashiraya**

Ouze wrote:

It seems odd to me that the best way to counter ISIS killing innocent people is for us to kill substantially more innocent people on a larger scale, which is exactly what both of you are describing.

We should do precisely nothing, because the US does not have the political will to stage a full on war with decades of occupation, and anything less then that is a waste of lives and resources.

ISIL has declared that Saudi Arabia is their next target: Well, Saudi Arabia is a rich country that spends a larger percentage of GDP on it's military than nearly any other country. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not super hot for my country go to another war to protect the guys who gave us Osama Bin Laden and 15 of the 9/11 hijackers.

I agree with this. I am not in the US so it's not my country going to war en masse, but if you try to stomp around there indiscriminately you will only reinforce their ideas of 'evil westerners'.

If the middle east can't solve this on their own, eventually intervention -will- become necessary, but this situation may yet develop in different paths.

**BaronIveagh**

Ashiraya wrote:

If the middle east can't solve this on their own, eventually intervention -will- become necessary, but this situation may yet develop in different paths.

Letting them take Saudi Arabia is quite possibly the worst idea in a long line of bad ideas in this thread. Sure, ISIL in charge of Medina and Mecca. While we're at it, how about we sell them plans for small, low yield nukes too. Something that will fit in a briefcase. They'd probably be able to do less damage with that;.

**Ashiraya**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Ashiraya wrote:

If the middle east can't solve this on their own, eventually intervention -will- become necessary, but this situation may yet develop in different paths.

Letting them take Saudi Arabia is quite possibly the worst idea in a long line of bad ideas in this thread. Sure, ISIL in charge of Medina and Mecca. While we're at it, how about we sell them plans for small, low yield nukes too. Something that will fit in a briefcase. They'd probably be able to do less damage with that;.

I doubt Saudi Arabia is going to let them. As previously stated, they have a big military and are a tough nut to crack.

**Frazzled**

Mr. Burning wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
You know in WW2, when you looked up and saw hundreds of bombers overhead and sound of their engines shook the earth?

Thats what ISIS needs to look up and see.

Yah know, I kind of agree.

Since the US is the only power capable I would suggest that Obama goes in front of a camera and apologizes in advance for the feth ton of ordnance that civilians may get dropped on them. At the close of his speech the first cruise missiles should be hitting their targets, to be followed by waves of B-52s carrying iron bombs. Carpet bomb from the northern edge of Baghdad upwards to the borders of Iran and Turkey.

B1's and B2's to assist in the effort.

Strike jets should follow the first waves decimating anything that has been identified as ISIS that isn't destroyed by cruise or carpet bombing.

Chuck some more cruise missiles around for good measure.

Maybe have a breather to ask those supporting ISIS to reconsider their positions. Then resume again, again, and again.

Maybe we could chuck a few tornadoes and Typhoons into the air to help the effort.

It won't happen, but it should. It should.

Congrats, you're now officially supporting a dictator we said had to go and are ostensively support rebels against. Oh, and yea, even more people will hate us.
Remember Libya? How has that turned out?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Couldn't the USA fall back on the old tried and tested CIA method of rounding up some exiles, sending them in with a ton of cash and weapons, and praying for a favourable result?

**Frazzled**

This has been dragged out now to the point there are only two ways it ends, US boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq, or ISIS boots on the ground in the US. Those are your choices

now, when all is said and done.

Thats fearmongering horse gak. We just need to control our borders better. Open borders with drugs, criminal cartels, human trafficking etc. are a substanitally greater ongoing threat RIGHT NOW.

I'd bet good money you didn't llike Bush when he was doing the same thing.

Lets assume you bomb them? Then what?
Lets assume you put "boots on the ground" Then what? We did this twice already. How has that turned out?

**Ouze**

indeed, how come none of these proposals to solve this problem with ordnance have covered the follow up of rebuilding the country? Or do you propose that we blow up the country, leave it in a ruined state, and hope that something worse doesn't sprout up even though historically that has always happened in that situation?

**Dreadwinter**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Ashiraya wrote:

If the middle east can't solve this on their own, eventually intervention -will- become necessary, but this situation may yet develop in different paths.

Letting them take Saudi Arabia is quite possibly the worst idea in a long line of bad ideas in this thread. Sure, ISIL in charge of Medina and Mecca. While we're at it, how about we sell them plans for small, low yield nukes too. Something that will fit in a briefcase. They'd probably be able to do less damage with that;.

I am seriously doubting that will happen. ISIS is poking a sleeping giant with Saudi Arabia. You think the royal family over there is going to let their way of life be threatened?

I am honestly just waiting for Iran to say screw it and make their move. Only a matter of time.

**Mr. Burning**

Ouze wrote:
indeed, how come none of these proposals to solve this problem with ordnance have covered the follow up of rebuilding the country? Or do you propose that we blow up the country, leave it in a ruined state, and hope that something worse doesn't sprout up even though historically that has always happened in that situation?

Admittedly carpet bombing is a bit OTT. Seriously though Limited intervention will not stop ISIL from their main aims. They will fester and continue to grow support.

Letting the arab nations sit on their hands while sitting on our hands is not really a credible option either.

There will be no peace unless we are able to do something credible viable and timely. Time is arguably running out....

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
Mr. Burning wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
You know in WW2, when you looked up and saw hundreds of bombers overhead and sound of their engines shook the earth?

Thats what ISIS needs to look up and see.

Yah know, I kind of agree.

Since the US is the only power capable I would suggest that Obama goes in front of a camera and apologizes in advance for the feth ton of ordnance that civilians may get dropped on them. At the close of his speech the first cruise missiles should be hitting their targets, to be followed by waves of B-52s carrying iron bombs. Carpet bomb from the northern edge of Baghdad upwards to the borders of Iran and Turkey.

B1's and B2's to assist in the effort.

It seems odd to me that the best way to counter ISIS killing innocent people is for us to kill substantially more innocent people on a larger scale, which is exactly what both of you are describing.

We should do precisely nothing, because the US does not have the political will to stage a full on war with decades of occupation, and anything less then that is a waste of lives and resources.

ISIL has declared that Saudi Arabia is their next target: Well, Saudi Arabia is a rich country that spends a larger percentage of GDP on it's military than nearly any other country. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not super hot for my country go to another war to protect the guys who gave us Osama Bin Laden and 15 of the 9/11 hijackers.

When Ouze and Frazzled agree, something is either epically right, or epically clusterfethed.

**BaronIveagh**

Ashiraya wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:

I doubt Saudi Arabia is going to let them. As previously stated, they have a big military and are a tough nut to crack.

The US spent a lot of money on the Iraqi military too. Hilariously a good portion of that hardware is now in ISIL hands. The Saudis are looking at the possibility of a three front war. Against ISIS/ISIL in Iraq and Egypt, and their own internal radicals who will be more than happy to aid ISIS. I doubt that the Saudis would find their army as dependable as they'd hope.

Frazzled wrote:[
Thats fearmongering horse gak. We just need to control our borders better. Open borders with drugs, criminal cartels, human trafficking etc. are a substanitally greater ongoing threat RIGHT NOW.

I'd bet good money you didn't Bush doing the same thing.

Lets assume you bomb them? Then what?
Lets assume you put "boots on the ground" Then what? We did this twice already. How has that turned out?

You said something similar when i said that the problems in Syria were going to spread to other countries in the region.

No, I didn't like Bush II doing it because Iraq wasn't a threat and invading it would destabilize the region. Which it did.

On the boarder thing: to make the US boarder sufficiently secure for purposes of keeping out terrorists, would require the US boarder patrol to outnumber all military branches combined. It might be possible to control the US/Mexico boarder, but the US/Canada boarder is beyond either the US or Canada's means to control. It's simply too large. It would require a force that outnumbers the entire militaries of Canada and the US combined to patrol it with any regularity, according to GAO.

My approach would be two pronged. First would be the use of overwhelming force to break ISIL. I'd call up every regular and every gaurdsman I could lay my hands on. My objective would be to put three million boots on the ground. Once they were driven out of Iraq I'd then push into west of Syria, using naval fire support in the cities and then pushing into the desert.

Then, I'd divide Syria into military districts, put a squad on every street corner, and occupy them for 20 years, with the US in absolute control over schools, public services, media, and hospitals. Any insurgents would be put to death. Cities, roads, and basic services would be rebuilt under the guidance of the Corps of Engineers. And then, once I had finished brainwashing a large enough cross section of the population by constantly reminding them of how ISIS murdered innocent women and children, then, and only then, would we allow them elections and then withdraw, leaving behind a large number of army, navy, and airforce bases which we'd continue to occupy.

**Frazzled**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

What makes the US the most safe.

ISIL in a pine box.

Something that a lot of you are not getting is that even with US air support, an ISIL victory is a real possibility. This is not something that is just going to go away on it's own and thus far our allies seem to be able to manage a stalemate at best on ISIL's territory. They're factionalized, and some would rather shoot each other than fight ISIL.

I don't see this ending any way but with US boots on the ground. Either one our terms, or on ISILs.

Also, I love the idea that ISIL is a 'middle east problem'. Much in the same way that Germany was a 'European problem' in 1940.

Then if you're going to claim Godwin we need to immeidate give the launch codes to 500 megs of warheads and launch.
If you're going to do a thing, then do a thing.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ouze wrote:
indeed, how come none of these proposals to solve this problem with ordnance have covered the follow up of rebuilding the country? Or do you propose that we blow up the country, leave it in a ruined state, and hope that something worse doesn't sprout up even though historically that has always happened in that situation?

A history 101 class for you, Ouze, but you did that back in 2003!

**Frazzled**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Couldn't the USA fall back on the old tried and tested CIA method of rounding up some exiles, sending them in with a ton of cash and weapons, and praying for a favourable result?

Family history. Daddy Frazzled was one of the involuntary Marine "volunteers" providing support. He was so drunk he almost fell out of the airplane as it circled over Havana.

Yep, thats my dad.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr. Burning wrote:
Ouze wrote:
indeed, how come none of these proposals to solve this problem with ordnance have covered the follow up of rebuilding the country? Or do you propose that we blow up the country, leave it in a ruined state, and hope that something worse doesn't sprout up even though historically that has always happened in that situation?

Admittedly carpet bombing is a bit OTT. Seriously though Limited intervention will not stop ISIL from their main aims. They will fester and continue to grow support.

Letting the arab nations sit on their hands while sitting on our hands is not really a credible option either.

There will be no peace unless we are able to do something credible viable and timely. Time is arguably running out....

Running out for what? The Mideast has been a hotbed of violence since Cain and Able. It never got better.
Strong fences make good neighbors. We need strong fences now.

**Ensis Ferrae**

IAmTheWalrus wrote:

ISIS is neither a nation, nor a state, and it has little in the way of resources and with the tides turning their support will dry up quickly.

ISIS/ISIL is very much a nation, as they have a self-identified commonality, and a strong desire for statehood.

Now, whether they are a state is a whole different matter entirely. Because Iraq has lost sovereignty in areas where IS forces have gone in, as well as in Syria, the argument can be made that they have gone from simply being ultra-nationalists to having a state whether the UN or anyone else recognizes it.

**MeanGreenStompa**

The West, just once, needs to stretch forth it's arm in full might, no moderated and moral highground, but the full force of our technological might. We have been appearing weaker and weaker over the years and the blunders in the middle east have exacerbated the issue.

We should erase ISIS so utterly that even the thought of upsetting us fills the little tinpot dictators and the 'freedom fighters' with absolute terror.

One example to be carved into the minds of the rest of the world for centuries to come.

These people are enslaving women for sex, beheading children and erasing entire cultures. We should destroy them. Absolute and Entire massed force.

**Ensis Ferrae**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The West, just once, needs to stretch forth it's arm in full might, no moderated and moral highground, but the full force of our technological might. We have been appearing weaker and weaker over the years and the blunders in the middle east have exacerbated the issue.

We should erase ISIS so utterly that even the thought of upsetting us fills the little tinpot dictators and the 'freedom fighters' with absolute terror.

One example to be carved into the minds of the rest of the world for centuries to come.

These people are enslaving women for sex, beheading children and erasing entire cultures. We should destroy them. Absolute and Entire massed force.

I bet we could convince all of the nuclear powers to launch a simultaneous nuke strike on one target.... that should send a message

**whembly**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The West, just once, needs to stretch forth it's arm in full might, no moderated and moral highground, but the full force of our technological might. We have been appearing weaker and weaker over the years and the blunders in the middle east have exacerbated the issue.

We should erase ISIS so utterly that even the thought of upsetting us fills the little tinpot dictators and the 'freedom fighters' with absolute terror.

One example to be carved into the minds of the rest of the world for centuries to come.

These people are enslaving women for sex, beheading children and erasing entire cultures. We should destroy them. Absolute and Entire massed force.

Agreed.

It should be on scale that we still remember what Rome did to Carthage.

**Ensis Ferrae**

whembly wrote:

Agreed.

It should be on scale that we still remember what Rome did to Carthage.

The problem with a literal "salt the earth" policy, is that it sets up a "human rights" nightmare, of how are all the farmers going to grow? Good news is, Monstanto probably has some "Salted Earth" seeds that will grow with Monsanto pest/herbicides/fertilizer, and even some purified Monsanto water

**MeanGreenStompa**

They are crucifying Christians alive, they are beheading small children, they are burying people alive in massed graves, they are enslaving and turning women and children into sex slaves, they are massacring and defiling on a huge scale. This isn't some muddy waters ethical dilemma people, this is 'the bad guys'.

We must stop them utterly and without a shred of mercy, negotiation or reason.

They should be liquidated. Entirely.

They have old AKs and adherence to a lunatic cult, we have flying fething robots and smart missiles.

Erase them. Grind them into dust.

**Ensis Ferrae**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
They are crucifying Christians alive, they are beheading small children, they are burying people alive in massed graves, they are enslaving and turning women and children into sex slaves, they are massacring and defiling on a huge scale. This isn't some muddy waters ethical dilemma people, this is 'the bad guys'.

We must stop them utterly and without a shred of mercy, negotiation or reason.

They should be liquidated. Entirely.

They have old AKs and adherence to a lunatic cult, we have flying fething robots and smart missiles.

Erase them. Grind them into dust.

Precisely (despite some of my jokes to the contrary), when it comes to ISIS, I believe that old Starship Troopers line: "The only good bug is a dead bug" is extremely true in this case.